[Closed] PSA drinking content - new recommended alcohol limits

I think all the new guidelines are saying is that essentially any significant amount of alcohol consumption has negative health effects. It's not really a good or bad thing, just a fact that is become clearer as more research has been done.

It's still your decision on what to do about it. I drink BTW, and I think it's good to be made aware of the risks.

The harm done by alcohol is massive, it's just sort of tolerated because it's so engrained in our culture. It's also pretty enjoyable to drink for most people most of the time.

I'm a bit disappointed by the new limits tbh, all the hype and build up getting us all excited then they end up bloody reducing them. Chiz.

The new "limits" are probably round about what I consume. Half of that would be a post-ride pub session. I can't say that it bothers me that the new guidance is lower than the last.

2 bottles of wine a week is over the limit, so you can only share a bottle on 3 nights a week.

YMMV but everyone knows drinking is not a great health inducing past time

Drinking is the new smoking. Ban it! 😛
Interesting to see how much alcohol is drunk on TV making it appear normal.

I drink "far too much". But it's my vice and while consuming, say, 30+ units a week might well be "bad for me", that's a couple of pints of beard-stroking bitter a night, not a bottle of vodka in one go on Saturday evening. More state-nannying isnt going to change my lifestyle.

[quote=tomd ]The harm done by [b]excessive use of[/b] alcohol is massive, it's just sort of tolerated because it's so engrained in our culture.

Fixed - I'm less than convinced that it is massively harmful to drink in moderation as the vast majority of people do*, not even if you're above the new guidelines.

What I find a bit concerning about all this is that there appears to be no mention of the significant health benefits of moderate drinking - this has been shown in numerous studies for a variety of different diseases. The message coming here is that any drinking is harmful, when that appears to be completely contradicted by the research.

*My aunt died of alcoholism related illnesses so I'm well aware of the problems of excess - then again my other aunt smoked and died of lung cancer

Only 3 nights a week on the sauce, heaven forbid!

I will maybe manage 6 ales at the weekend if I drink Fri and sat, my kids have no respect for my hangovers

More state-nannying isnt going to change my lifestyle.

More state-nannying isnt going to change my lifestyle.

Comments like this are pretty annoying. This isn't a "nanny state" thing. If you were being forbidden from consuming alcohol above a certain limit then you'd have a point, this is just a recommendation.

No one can make an informed decision about anything if they are lacking information!

[i]tipsy[/i] dangerous subversive, I'll have you know.

This is your moment in history, Stoner.
🙂

Like when Martin Luther King nailed the Magna Carta to the doors of the Alamo, it will be remembered for ever more.

About 2 pints a week here, I reckon I'll be OK.

About 2 pints a week here

hardly seems worth getting the glass wet.

What I find a bit concerning about all this is that there appears to be no mention of the significant health benefits of moderate drinkin

professor on BBC this AM was saying this is a myth they wanted to dispel.

The best way to dispel that myth would be to show the flaws in the (many) earlier studies.

Bit I heard on the radio this morning discussing this had someone on explaining that the "there is no safe level" part of the advice is based on one study that contradicts the mass of studies and evidence that small amounts of certain alcohol is actually beneficial to the heart.

The advice is just based on a statistic (as usual) that alcohol "causes cancer". Breathing air causes cancer also. We did the one recently about bacon causing cancer. Yes it does apparently, but doesn't mean you will get cancer eating bacon. There is an increased risk but it still remains very small.

I've had a quick search and the only thing I can find suggesting the previous research is wrong is this new guidance - haven't found any new research contradicting that. There were quite a lot of studies done showing benefits across quite a wide range of health issues.

edit:
[quote=deadkenny ]There was a bit on the radio this morning discussing this and they had someone on explaining that the "there is no safe level" part of the advice is based on one study that contradicts the mass of studies

Ah, that sounds like a valid way of analysing the research then 🙄

I think I'll ignore it just as I have all the other scare stories regarding just about everything else. Did you know that mountain biking is dangerous?

You may have a better handle on this than me but as someone who'll grasp at anything to justify an extra pint or two I'm unaware of all these significant health benefits. I think there was mention on the beeb this morning of an occasional glass of red having a slight protective effect against heart disease, but only for women over 55.

From what I understand these latest guidelines are pitched to reduce the risk of dying from an alcohol related illness to 1%, and it's being stressed that there's no safe amount of alcohol you can consume, it ups your risk from the first sip.

Breathing air causes cancer also

No it doesn't.

The research merely confirms what even a mild hangover tells you - alcohol isn't good for your body.
I doubt moderate drinking has any physical benefits.
But there is a lot to be said for the social and mental benefits of going down the pub and meeting friends.
It is a public health issue. We are living longer but taking worse care of our bodies. It is incredibly expensive to treat an elderly human being for diseases and conditions they have incurred from a bad lifestyle (note: this is not the same thing as just natural aging).
My experience is a lot of retired people are drinking heavily as they have nothing to do. Most heavy drinkers I know lack one thing: hope.
I drink too much, and it is all very well me saying, it's my choice, but is it then fair for me to expect the NHS to rescue me from all the health conditions my drinking has incurred?

I think all the new guidelines are saying is that essentially any significant amount of alcohol consumption has negative health effects.

...

The harm done by alcohol is massive, it's just sort of tolerated because it's so engrained in our culture.

We have two things here. All drinking has negative effects on your health. This is the new bit. It's mostly about increasing cancer risk.

The "massive" harm is more about heavier drinking whether it be violence, liver damage or drink driving.

I think cats have a sensible attitude to alcohol.

I am sceptical of studies claiming to show health benefits for moderate drinking, I wonder how many of these studies were funded by The Portman Group. By all means enjoy a drink, I do but do it in the full knowledge that it is bad for you. Badnewz is right about the social and mental benefit of meeting friends,you in the pub or anywhere

Farage is getting desperate.

Wheels falling off his car last week, mass lock-ins this week.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35261968 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35261968[/url]

Breathing air causes cancer also

No it doesn't.

Depends on the air 😉

Pure air and no pollutants, probably not. Polluted air, especially containing particulates from diesel, yes (according to WHO).

re farage folk seem very confused between advice and being compelled

the "state" provides you with information about remaining healthy

you can follow it or ignore it at a lock in as you see fit.

I am not sure why folk think the state should not provide us with advice about healthy living It's not like being healthy is a bad idea.

FWIW i once heard matthew parris ranting about Zebra crossings as nanny stating and despair at the fact the government told him where to cross the road. Me i see it as a device to provide me with a safer method of crossing than elsewhere that i am free to use or ignore. That is all this is. Use the info or ignore it as its your life to be lived as you see fit.

Depends on the air

Pure air and no pollutants, probably not. Polluted air, especially containing particulates from diesel, yes (according to WHO).

He's not a real Doctor you know.

[quote=gordimhor ]I am sceptical of studies claiming to show health benefits for moderate drinking, I wonder how many of these studies were funded by The Portman Group.

There have been a lot of them, lots of them properly peer reviewed - so I doubt they were all funded by them, and even if so it's unlikely they would have been published in major journals if the source of funding resulted in biases in the methodology or results. Why exactly are you sceptical?

BTW I meant to mention earlier that one of the reasons I'm concerned about new limits putting lots of moderate drinkers over the limits is that it encourages general disregard of such advice - which could have the result not only of people drinking more because they're over the limit anyway, but also of them disregarding other health advice which is more important. I'm not suggesting that controlling alcohol is not important but I don't believe the difference between 14 and 21 units a week is significant - not compared to plenty of other things people do which are bad for them, the most immediately obvious one being overeating, which I'm sure causes far, far more health issues than that 7 unit difference.

It's like setting speed limits way below the 85th percentile speed 😈

@ aracer I'm sceptical for the very reason you quote about biases in methodology or results. I also think the drink industry has widespread easy access to the media where it can place stories about these claimed health benefits from studies funded by the portman group

I read somewhere that exceeding the new guidelines is as dangerous as driving. I don't drive, so I'll continue to drink.

I have a glass or two of wine (around 1/3 to a half a bottle) most evenings after the kids are in bed, unless I have a couple of beers. That probably puts me slightly above the new guidelines, but below/around the old ones, so might have a marginal detrimental effect on my overall health outcome statistics.

I can live with that. Albeit for slightly less time than I could.

from the BBC article:

This has been deemed to be an acceptable level of risk as it is approximately the same risk that someone has when they do an every day task such as driving a car.

This is the crux of it for me. It's about risk, like everything in modern life. They have recalibrated what is safe based on the risk of harm caused by it, relative to other daily activities.

Applying statistics based on large populations to individuals is overly simplistic and just plain lazy.

Also from the BBC article:

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, an expert in understanding risk from the University of Cambridge, said it was important to put the 1% risk in context. He said an hour of TV watching or a bacon sandwich a couple of time a week was more dangerous.

I generally drink while watching TV. Life on the edge!

[quote=miketually ]
I generally drink while watching TV. Life on the edge!
Just don't be having that bacon sandwich at the same time!

[quote=gordimhor ]@ aracer I'm sceptical for the very reason you quote about bases in methodology or results. I also think the drink industry has widespread easy access to the media where it can place stories about these claimed health benefits from studies funded by the portman group

Yeah, but as I mentioned, they've been peer reviewed so that should get rid of those biases - I've certainly not seen any suggestion that such biases exist in those studies, not even in any refutation of them. The scientific community does tend to control that sort of thing quite well. Nor am I talking about press releases - this is proper research which can be found in scientific journals.

Applying statistics based on large populations to individuals is overly simplistic and just plain lazy.

Just don't be having that bacon sandwich at the same time!

But am I okay having the rest of the Christmas cake?

[quote=miketually ]I read somewhere that exceeding the new guidelines is as dangerous as driving. I don't drive, so I'll continue to drink.

How much would you have to drink for it to be as dangerous as cycling? Is a lump of polystyrene likely to help at all? 😈

Yeah but the car thing is a utility booze is entirely discretionary

How much would you have to drink for it to be as dangerous as cycling? Is a lump of polystyrene likely to help at all?

The overall health benefits of cycling outweigh any increased risk of sudden death, and I always wear a helmet when I'm drinking.

Yeah but the car thing is a utility booze is entirely discretionary

Driving is discretionary and a lot of people, myself included, don't do it.

Heard it being discussed on the radio this morning.
There was someone saying that not drinking during the week,then doing all the units at the weekend is worse for you,and it's classed as binge drinking.

[quote=miketually ]The overall health benefits of cycling outweigh any increased risk of sudden death

Just like moderate drinking (IMHO and I'm not about to change that until they come up with more than one new piece of research) 🙂

[quote=fasthaggis ]Heard it being discussed on the radio this morning.
There was someone saying that not drinking during the week,then doing all the units at the weekend is worse for you,and it's classed as binge drinking.
That's not new

Miketually - driving is not discretionary for a lot of people, myself included. Getting to Durham from south cumbria this morning, for example

Whilst I have no doubt that all the studies funded by the portman group meet all the standards they require to, I still see a very obvious potential conflict of interest there should findings show that alcohol is harmful.

BBC at its worst.

"Tough new", the first words and already it's some kind of hardship and bad news. The whole attitude through the article is wrong, as though wanting to be pissed all the time is normal and not doing so is a hardship.

"The new guidance moves to weekly limits to get away from the idea that drinking every day is fine."

One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.

Which studies are funded by the Portman group?

That's not new

I might consider drinking less but I'm not sure if I could afford it 🙂

[quote=Edukator ]One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.

Though 7 glasses (even a 175ml measure) of wine a week is over the new guidelines 😯

One glass of wine every day is the one way to drink that can't be proved to do you any harm and may do you some good. Drinking everyday is within the guidelines - seven glasses a week equals one a day.

On the BBC news this morning they were saying that having 2 dry days was now part of the guidelines.

I liked the old advice. Fits this Marge Simpson quote 😀

"I've been so bored since we moved here, I found myself drinking a glass of wine every day. I know doctors say you should drink a glass and a half but I just can't drink that much"

Miketually - driving is not discretionary for a lot of people, myself included. Getting to Durham from south cumbria this morning, for example

http://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/timesandfares/KEN/DHM/080116/0915/dep

I drink too much, and it is all very well me saying, it's my choice, but is it then fair for me to expect the NHS to rescue me from all the health conditions my drinking has incurred?

Yes. As a heavy drinker you will have paid loads more tax over the years than a teetotaler. In any case we are all going to die of something and it's a lottery as to whether we die suddenly (and cheaply for the NHS) or after long and expensive medical treatment.

Drinkers and smokers may die younger but they won't necessarily cost the NHS more than healthy lifestyle adherents who need NHS treatment in their 80s and 90s. In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.

I'll drink to that irc 😀

[quote=thisisnotaspoon ]On the BBC news this morning they were saying that having 2 dry days was now part of the guidelines.

Is there any scientific basis for that?

I should point out in case anybody thinks I'm a hardcore drinker that I rarely if ever don't have at least 2 dry days a week (usually at least 3 or 4) and probably am under the new guidelines most weeks - the difference being that it was very rare for me to be over the previous ones.

Why not ask them yourself?
http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/research/request-information
Or since it is actually done by the drinkaware trust which the portman group established you could try their website.

Heavy drinking sessions increase the risk of accidents and injury, it says.

Tonight I'm going to enjoy a ten pack of L&B's and enough alcohol so that I can no longer see.

Anything that increases the chances of something exciting happening on a Friday night in South Cumbria, I'm all for.

Drinkers and smokers may die younger but they won't necessarily cost the NHS more than healthy lifestyle adherents who need NHS treatment in their 80s and 90s. In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.

I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.

Though 7 glasses (even a 175ml measure) of wine a week is over the new guidelines

Seven medium (175ml) glasses of wine is 14 units which is exactly what the new guidelines suggest.

This one in atherosclerosis patients is definitely not funded by them!

http://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2891-12-147

A daily glass of red wine associated with lifestyle changes independently improves blood lipids in patients with carotid arteriosclerosis: results from a randomized controlled trial

Interesting results for LDL/HDL ratios.

I thought I'd keep a log of this years alcohol consumption. It won't make interesting reading. I've drunk one half pint of beer so far!

[quote=gordimhor ]Why not ask them yourself?
http://www.portmangroup.org.uk/research/request-information
Or since it is actually done by the drinkaware trust which the portman group established you could try their website.

<shrug> you're the one suggesting the research has been funded by them - maybe it's up to you to do that?

[quote=Edukator ]Seven medium (175ml) glasses of wine is 14 units which is exactly what the new guidelines suggest.

How weak is your wine? At 12% a 175ml glass is 2.1 units. A quick check of bottles in my rack only one is less than 12% (but still just over 2 units a glass), most are 13% or more.

Those beneficial drinking reports, they all seem to mention red wine, does tequila, wkd, isopropyl alcohol, etc provide the same positive effect? It's just I think some people see "red wine is good for you" and misapply it (intentionally or ignorantly) to get wrecked on thier tipple of choice at the weekend.

I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.

I believe I am correct in saying that the original alcohol limits were never based on any scientific data, rather than a 'rough feeling' from the members of the advisory panel.

Similarly, the limits recommending zero alcohol in pregnancy were based on sending 'a simple message' rather than any actual evidence that moderate (rather than excessive) drinking during pregnancy was harmful.

I know for sure there are studies that suggest a clear Hometic effect from alcohol consumption, particuarly those at risk from certain conditions (eg cateracts and artheroscloresis) so I remain suspicious that these limits are about 'sending the right message' rather than science.

[quote=D0NK ]Those beneficial drinking reports, they all seem to mention red wine, does tequila, wkd, isopropyl alcohol, etc provide the same positive effect? It's just I think some people see "red wine is good for you" and misapply it (intentionally or ignorantly) to get wrecked on thier tipple of choice at the weekend.

Not all of them - for some things the benefit seems to come mainly from red wine consumption, for some it's any alcoholic drink (in moderation).

No study has ever suggested that getting wrecked at the weekend is a good thing - but then we knew that didn't we?

I think you're underestimating the cost of medical treatment vs care home costs.

are you including the extra tax paid by the hedonists?

This article - https://fullfact.org/factchecks/does_smoking_cost_as_much_as_it_makes_for_the_treasury-29288 - seems to put the total cost of smoking at around £14bn while taxes are £12bn, but there are a huge number of estimates in there.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/1536/ag22.htm

Point 10 Interesting!

Most drinking/disease studies are epidemiological, and although you can control for confounds statistically, this is never perfect. So, people that drink one glass of red wine a night are different from people who drink nothing in other ways too (e.g. higher SES on average etc.) which in turn are associated with improved health (better diet etc.; more likely to access healthcare etc.) - this can give the impression statistically of a protective effect of alcohol.

You can't do experimental studies on chronic alcohol use in humans, so all the data is observational - meaning that it is hard to draw causal conclusions. Although epidemiological stats are improving all the time.

Edit: I linked the units page from Wikipedia but it didn't work and there no point really.

Aracer, I think you're worrying to much. A 1% stronger wine, say 8% more alcohol isn't really significant. These are guidelines, one size fits all guidelines. They haven't even retained the male and female limits in terms of units. When you consider that the people contributing to this forum go from Fifty something to a hundred and twenty something kilos worrying about a few percent is losing sight of the overall message and falling into the trap the BBC has laid with its sensationalist "tough new" message.

But you know that, as this sensible quote shows:

No study has ever suggested that getting wrecked at the weekend is a good thing - but then we knew that didn't we?

[quote> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/1536/ag22.htm

Point 10 Interesting!

Points 34 and 35 seem to show that there is a health advantage from moderate drinking for the individual but the decision was made not to incorporate this into the guidance aimed at the general population.

[quote=ianpv ]Most drinking/disease studies are epidemiological, and although you can control for confounds statistically, this is never perfect. So, people that drink one glass of red wine a night are different from people who drink nothing in other ways too (e.g. higher SES on average etc.) which in turn are associated with improved health (better diet etc.; more likely to access healthcare etc.) - this can give the impression statistically of a protective effect of alcohol.

Only if you don't control for the differences in your populations - but as you say they do control, if they didn't then the results of such studies would be rejected by the peer review process. Of course such control is not perfect, but if it's not biased it should be just as likely to overestimate the improved health due to other lifestyle factors as underestimate it, meaning the conclusions are just as likely to underestimate the health effects of what you're studying as overestimate them. Of course with a single study* then it's hard to trust the results, but then we're talking about multiple studies and indeed meta-analysis.

*which appears to be what we're relying on as evidence of the lack of health benefit

[quote=Edukator ]Aracer, I think you're worrying to much. A 1% stronger wine, say 8% more alcohol isn't really significant. These are guidelines, one size fits all guidelines.

I'm not worrying at all - I'm criticising the guidelines rather than your suggestion, I think we're pretty much in agreement on sensible alcohol consumption. It's not just the BBC either, similar reports elsewhere and I don't think it is media bias at all here, the impression I get is that they're reporting it exactly as they were intended to.

Only if you don't control for the differences in your populations - but as you say they do control, if they didn't then the results of such studies would be rejected by the peer review process.

Of course "they" control, but the controls are never perfect - this won't stop a paper being published as scientists tend to be aware of both the value and the limitations of single imperfect studies. It's also why the Medical Research Council are chucking money at causal methods in epidemiology (e.g. [url= http://www.bristol.ac.uk/integrative-epidemiology/about/ ]this lot[/url]. Disclosure: although I'm not a member I do some work with them). It's not black and white, our understanding of health and disease is changing all the time. Sensationalist press coverage really doesn't help, and seldom reflects the actual research well.

here's an interesting abstract on drinking, for example (not my area, btw, I'm a psychologist not an epidemiologist, although have done a few courses on medical stats)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19594799

In fact given that drinkers and smokers won't draw an old age pension as long then they might cost the taxpayer less in the long run.

This is an odd one, it always seems to be based on an "unhealthy" drinker/smoker costing very little in terms of healthcare. As if they're perfectly healthy until a switch is flicked and then they're suddenly dead (possible with a stroke or heart attack, but both of those could also leave you massively disabled instead). I would imagine that chemo/operations/follow up scans for lung cancer or decades of dialysis, oxygen therapy for respiratory problems, or stroke related neuro-rehab and thrice daily visits from district nurses wouldn't be cheap.

If you're physically healthy but 'just' old, I'm not sure you'd cost more terms of healthcare than the heavy smoker who essentially reached old age earlier than you.

If you want to smoke/drink excessively then fine, but don't pretend that you're doing everyone else a favour by doing it. If you really want to save the taxpayer money then live a healthy life and blow your brains out the day before retirement!

First it was my sausages

Now its my beer, just waiting to find out peanuts are bad too, I'm at my wits end. The Germans are all ****ed if this is true, the country lives on beer and sausages.

Smokers do pay a hefty whack of tax for the habbit. What the govermant chooses to do with the cash is unknown to me.

Smokers do pay a hefty whack of tax for the habbit. What the govermant chooses to do with the cash is unknown to me.

The tax goes into the Treasury and is spent on school, roads, bombs, nurses, chemo drugs, the Queen, and all the other stuff that the government spends money on.

£12bn in tobacco tax per year is a drop in the ocean in terms of total government spending of around £759.5 billion.

Read the Full Fact link I posted above for relative tax/spend for smoking.

I very rarely exceed the new limits, but I do hate all these guidelines, as has been said we all know alcohol is bad for you, what they should be doing is suggesting good drinks to have in social situations. Assuming we all like to go out now and again to the pub, and don't want to drink tap water, I can't help thinking a pint of sub 4% ale is better for you than the standard alternative of a pint of Coke/lemonade